Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

GREAT EXHIBITION OF 1851 (CENTENARY)

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following statement. I have now been able to examine, with my colleagues, the possibilities of marking the Centenary of the Great Exhibition of 1851 by some national display in addition to the British Industries Fair. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as President of the Board of Trade, said on 28th March that in spite of the difficulties then foreseen methods could undoubtedly be found involving relatively little new construction work outside the programme already in course of planning, and that he was examining whether some progress towards the building of a permanent centre for the British Industries Fair could not be achieved in time for the Centenary.
It is now clear that under the revised investment programme no new construction work, for such purposes, can be undertaken for 1951. Nevertheless, the Government feel that it would not be right on this account to abandon the celebration of the Centenary, and we, therefore, propose to mark it by a national display illustrating the British contribution to civilisation, past, present and future, in the Arts, in science and technology, and in industrial design. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is, therefore, inviting the Arts Council of Great Britain to make arrangements, in association with other bodies concerned, for a Festival of the Arts in 1951. The Festival would not be confined to London, and provision will be made to link up with it existing ventures in Edinburgh and elsewhere, and to encourage new

ones. Wales, for example, must play its part. The Festival will include events in music and drama, opera and ballet, together with exhibitions of painting, sculpture and photography.
Separate consideration will be given in due course to arrangements covering architecture and town planning in its design aspects; books, and the showing of notable British films, including documentaries. Besides the Festival, there will be two major national exhibitions. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, is inviting the. Council of Industrial Design to sponsor a first-rate design display which will include consumer goods, civil transport, certain classes of capital goods and some handicraft production, and some displays showing the historical development of some industries.
I am arranging for an Exhibition of British achievements in science and technology to be organised by the Central Office of Information on behalf of the Research Councils and other scientific bodies. Both the Festival and the Exhibitions will be held in existing buildings. Provision will be made for co-ordination between these projects. They will cover, at a national level, the field of the 1851 Exhibition and will, I believe, mark its Centenary as worthily as our resources will allow.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This statement is of some importance and one which will be welcomed. It is a good proposal that the Great Exhibition of 1851 should be commemorated, and I feel it all the more so, since I happen to be one of those, who, by an accident of office is a Commissioner of the Exhibition. It was, incidentally, with some surprise that I found a permanent body still existing from the Exhibition of 1851. This body has carried on many useful purposes in the century which has intervened. In the list of objects which the Lord President has just intimated as those which he desires to commemorate, I trust it will also be possible to include some of the purposes which the Commissioners have carried out in the intervening century, particularly their work in cultural advances overseas. As the Lord President knows, the British school at Rome, and, I think, a notable amount of activity in Greek archaeology have been under the sponsorship of the Trustees. It is well worth remembering


that the Exhibition, which was of great interest to the people of this country, has led to activities outside this country of an international aspect. We should also keep this in mind when we are considering how best to commemorate it.
We shall look with great interest at the proposals for the Festival and particularly the passage in the Lord President's statement that provision will be made to link with the festivals in existing forms in Edinburgh and elsewhere and to encourage new ones. We trust that those who successfully promoted the rather remarkable Festival in Edinburgh last year will be given a full opportunity to co-operate, and perhaps to suggest either new ideas or elaborations of the existing ideas which the Lord President has just mentioned. In general, I think it is a worthy object, and one which will be given a welcome from all parts of the House.

Mr. Morrison: I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the friendly observations he has made. It will be of the utmost importance that there should be co-operation, and he can be sure I will take into consideration the suggestions he has made, including the point about Edinburgh. We shall welcome suggestions from all quarters which will be given understanding consideration.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I am sure we all welcome the statement made by the Lord President. It is going to afford a splendid opportunity to show what Britain possesses and what Britain has done in the field of art, science and industry. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would consider the Victoria and Albert Museum as a suitable centre for the main part of the London exhibition. The Victoria and Albert Museum would be peculiarly appropriate because, it will be remembered, it was built out of the profits of the 1851 exhibition. When it is fully restored from war damage it will contain one of the finest exhibitions of decorative and applied art in the world. There will also be plenty of room to house a loan exhibition of fine paintings.
I welcome what the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said about international art, but I would remind the House that in this country we have, often in private collections, some of the finest works of art, both painting and sculpture

—international work as well as British—that have ever been created. It would be possible to house those conveniently in the Victoria and Albert Museum effectively and to display them there. I am also delighted that the plan includes all kinds of artistic events, among them ballet, music and drama, which the Arts Council has done so much work in fostering all ever Britain, and also that the Arts Council is being asked, with other organisations, to make the arrangements for the exhibitions and celebrations. I very much welcome the whole plan as conceived and laid down by the Lord President.

Mr. Morrison: In the circumstances, bearing in mind its name, the Victoria and Albert Museum must necessarily be taken into consideration, in view of the fact that her late Majesty and the Prince Consort were so actively associated with the exhibition of 1851. The hon. Lady can be sure that the Victoria and Albert Museum will be prominently featured. I will keep that in mind, together with all the other useful suggestions.

Mr. Speaker: This is a somewhat pleasant but irregular proceeding. There is no Question before the House. Mr. Charles Williams.

Mr. Charles Williams: May I add one suggestion? I feel sure that we shall welcome the proposal which has been made, but I was not sure if there was to be included an exhibition of British art and an attempt made, which I am sure would be successful, to gather together some of the privately owned pictures. I would like to emphasise what the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) has said. I hope that on an occasion such as this every effort will be made to see that the finest objects of British art are gathered together and shown to the public of this country and to the world as well.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman can be quite sure that that matter will be sympathetically considered.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where it is intended to have the permanent home of the British Industries Fair? He said something about it being housed in existing buildings.

Mr. Morrison: We have a number of existing buildings in mind but they have


not yet been inspected. As soon as it has been decided an announcement will be made.

Sir John Mellor: May I ask the Lord President whether it has been decided what portion of these events are to be held in the vicinity of Birmingham, having regard to the existing buildings at Castle Bromwich?

Mr. Morrison: I am most anxious that this shall not be a wholly London affair. I am very wishful that Scotland, Wales and the English provinces shall be active participants, and we shall consider the importance of Birmingham in the Midland area.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Has the issue of a memorial postage stamp been considered, not only for the benefit of stamp collectors all over the world, but as a means of advertising?

Mr. Morrison: That has not been thought about, but it is well worth considering and I will see that the matter is gone into.

Orders of the Day — MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND PHARMACISTS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

11.18 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I think the purpose of this Bill will commend itself to hon. Members in all parts of the House. Its justification consists of the fact that before and during the war a number of doctors from abroad came to this country and were unable to practise, because they did not have British qualifications. There were countries with whom we had reciprocal arrangements where the qualifications were regarded as suitable  enable doctors to practise in either country if they so wished. There were, however, very few of them—only Belgium, Italy and Japan—and the arrangements have since been cancelled. It is, therefore, necessary, if a doctor who qualified abroad is to practise in this country, that special arrangements should be made. This was done during the war under Defence Regulation 32B of July, 1940. There were a number of territories specified, and the doctors from those territories who lived here were able to practise under restricted conditions.
Independent practice was not permitted because it was considered that it was not reasonable, while our own doctors were called up, that doctors from abroad should be allowed to take their place without any limitation or restriction whatever. The doctors who were placed on the temporary register were allowed to practise in hospitals and as assistants in general practice. That temporary register was closed in February, 1946, under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, but doctors who were on that register continue to be registered until 31st December of this year. After that they will be unable to practise unless the position is regularised. There is obviously a great deal of anxiety among those doctors about their position, and it was in order to reassure those who are in this position that I obtained permission to print the Bill before the last Recess, in order that they might know what the intentions of the


Government were. It is, therefore, necessary that we should get this Bill passed into law by the end of the year; otherwise all these doctors will be unable to practise in this country.
Similar temporary arrangements apply to doctors brought here under the Polish Resettlement Scheme, who arrived after the closing of the temporary register but who may be temporarily registered under the Polish Resettlement Act. This arrangement also will end on 31st December, and some of those doctors may not be here by that date. But I propose to say a word or two about that later. The first purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to regularise the position of those doctors who are on the temporary register, to enable them to practise in this country in exactly the same way as British doctors with ordinary British qualifications. There are, however, some doctors who are not on the register at all, who obtained diplomas abroad and who, for a variety of reasons, have not been able to get themselves on the Register. Obviously, it would be extremely unfair if those doctors were unable to practise, because many of them did very excellent work for us during the war. We therefore have to make provision for them.
There are a number of different groups. There are many American and Canadian doctors who came here with their Forces. There are other individual categories, including Germans, Austrians, Poles and Czechs, of whom there were about 3,500 on the Register when temporary registration ceased. However, from the information I have been able to gather, I do not believe that all of these will want to remain. We estimate that about 1,500 to 2,000 will want to avail themselves of the facilities afforded by the Bill. The Polish doctors who were brought here under the Polish Resettlement Scheme are in a special category, of course. About 200 of them have registered and it is expected that this figure will increase by the end of the year. There are foreign doctors who served overseas with our Forces and who, on demobilisation, have been permitted to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. They were commissioned overseas, and because they were serving abroad they could not become registered in this country, so they are not on the temporary register. They should

be allowed to practise if they want to stay.
Then there are doctors who were allowed to come here owing to war circumstances, and who have been unable hitherto to become registered on the strength of their foreign diplomas. These include doctors who were here for some time but who were ineligible for temporary registration because they were not employed on medical work specified in the temporary registration orders, and arrived since temporary registration ceased. They also include graduates of the Polish School of Medicine, Edinburgh, since temporary registration ceased. Then there are unidentified doctors who arrived here owing to war circumstances, but before 4th August. In this respect we are simply regularising the position.
The date, 4th August, is chosen for obvious reasons. We are not here dealing with any change in the permanent law. We are not attempting to say that a doctor qualified abroad can practise in this country without let or hindrance. We are merely dealing with the situation created by the war and by the circumstances immediately before the war. We must, therefore, take a date, and 4th August was chosen because once the intention of the Government became known, and it was realised that we intended to enable doctors qualified abroad in certain circumstances to practise in this country, unless we had fixed a date when the privilege would cease to operate we would have been flooded with doctors whose circumstances would not be known, whose experience we would not be able to trace, but who would be able to qualify and practise in this country. We chose 4th August because that was the date when the intention of the Government became known. Otherwise our position would be quite impossible.
The choice of this date will give rise to hardship in individual instances, but we cannot help it. As I have said, if we did not have a date at all the Medical Register in this country would be entirely upset, because anybody calling himself a doctor abroad would be able to qualify in this country, and unless we had reciprocal arrangements with other countries we would be a receptacle for all kinds of queer people who might have qualified in all kinds of queer circumstances. Therefore, we fixed that date. I am, however,


quite conscious that the arbitrary nature of the date may give rise to individual hardship, but it cannot be avoided. There are doctors attached to the Polish Forces who may not be in this country before the end of the year, and, therefore, special arrangements will have to be made to deal with them.
There are also, of course, the pharmacists. They are anxious that there shall be a provision by which pharmacists with experience abroad may be authorised to practise in this country. What the Bill does is to enable the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society to make by-laws, subject to approval of the Privy Council, to register pharmacists with qualifications obtained abroad, either with or without examination and/or training in this country, as they think proper. The existing provision enabling Colonial pharmacists to be registered only on the strength of Colonial diplomas, and that without any examination, is repealed. I do not think there is any difficulty arising there.
There is one other point I would like to make. I have been a little concerned about the position of individual doctors who, for a variety of reasons, were unable to be in this country during the war, who could not get on the temporary register and who may, indeed, not be in this country by the end of the year. I have in mind one or two cases of doctors who were attached to our establishments abroad. It seems to me entirely unfair that those doctors should not be allowed to practise in this country, and I, therefore, propose in the Committee stage, to introduce an Amendment to make it possible for doctors in those restricted categories to be registered in this country. Some of my hon. Friends have been concerned about these cases. I have examined them, and I am satisfied that they have good cause for anxiety, particularly in the case of, I think, an Austrian doctor who was associated with administration and who, because of the restricted character of this Bill, would not be able to practise in this country at all. I propose to make an Amendment to enable that position to be dealt with. I do not believe the mere accident that some doctors were in this country and thus able to be on the permanent register, whereas others who happened to be in

Hong Kong or elsewhere could not be registered because they were not here, and, consequently, were unable to get on the temporary register, should be allowed to prejudice the future of the latter class. I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will sympathise with the purpose of the Bill.

11.31 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It might be said, with truth, that this is a dignified Bill, and this is a dignified occasion upon which the House is engaged today. It arises out of the circumstances of the war, but it differs from so many other Measures which have arisen out of those war circumstances because it is a Measure of relaxation instead of restriction. It is a good thing that we should be able to embark, even to a small degree, on the lessening of those tight controls over our own personal movements which have had to be introduced since the war. This Bill also recalls, to some extent, the great days when this country was not merely an asylum, but a citadel for those escaping from persecution abroad. It will always be a matter of pride to this House that it should enshrine in the words of a Statute the Polish School of Medicine of the University of Edinburgh; and that we should have been able to give hospitality to men of science and distinction from countries abroad, at a time when their own countries were unable to do it, will always be a matter of very proper congratulation to the people of this country.
The Bill affects a considerable number of persons. As the Minister has said, some 3,500 professional men of high skill were able to exercise their professions in this country, to the great advantage of both ourselves and themselves. The Minister intimated he thought that after the war some 1,500 to 2,000 persons would be covered. These figures alone show the amount of mental uneasiness—and, indeed, possible professional disturbance—which would be caused by any delay in the passage of this Bill. Therefore, we on this side of the House propose to afford every facility to its passage. I understand the Bill has already been considered in another place, where certain Amendments were made, as far as I can see, much to the advantage of the Measure.
I trust, however, that it will be possible to go perhaps a little further along this


path, and to extend the arrangements for reciprocity. Some of the arrangements in this Bill are for the relaxation of our rather stringent conditions, even as regards distinguished physicians from the New World, which will be a very great advantage in so far as it will encourage a free flow of scientific and technical men about the world. It will be not merely of great material advantage, but of great spiritual advantage as showing that the currents, long frozen, have begun to thaw, and that the fluid circulation is beginning again. The Minister has pointed out, on more than one occasion, that the whole working of the great health service schemes depend upon an adequate supply of trained personnel, but trained personnel in the case of the junior ranks—if one may so describe the nurses—is, as the Minister knows, a matter of very acute pre-occupation. If it were possible also to allow qualifications overseas in certain other professions to count to some extent towards registration in this county, I am sure that would be greatly to our advantage. I do not think the Bill covers dentists in any way, does it?

Mr. Bevan: It does not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It does not exactly, except in so far as a certain number of men of professional skill fled from their own countries to this country during the persecutions of the war. In so far as these matters can be regularised, and these men admitted to the register, where they are on the same footing as professional men here, subject to the same tests, and covered by the same code of ethics, it will again be to the advantage both of the people of this country and of themselves. We on this side of the House do not wish to delay the passage of this Bill in any way, and I conclude by saying that we congratulate the Minister on the occasion which this Bill represents.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: It is an open secret that this Bill arose at the suggestion of the doctors themselves, who felt, I think rightly, that doctors from abroad who served this country so well during the war should be rewarded; and the doctors were ready to give up the exclusive possession of facilities to practise in this country which they had obtained by six years of hard study, to reward these people. I have often heard the

medical profession described as one of the liberal professions. I feel that we can now call it not only one of the liberal, but one of the generous professions as well.
I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing with the medical profession, and I hope the medical profession will show reciprocity by agreeing with the Minister in the negotiations now proceeding. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his statement about the case which I brought to his notice, concerning a doctor who is now a British subject; he was an officer in the medical department at Hong-kong, was taken prisoner by the Japanese, and suffered severely. That man served this country well, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for agreeing that he also shall be allowed to register.
There is only one Clause about which I have any doubt, and that is Clause 8 which says:
In the case of a person who satisfies the Council"—
That is the General Medical Council—
that he is or intends to be in the United Kingdom temporarily for the purpose of employment in a medical capacity in a hospital or other institution approved by the Council"—
and is well qualified, he shall have a temporary right to practise. This Clause is introduced clearly, and rightly, to allow distinguished physicians and surgeons from Commonwealth and other countries to come here to demonstrate methods of treatment and operation. I, and others, have greatly benefited from that in the past, but the difficulty has been that if one of these individuals treated a patient or performed an operation he would, technically, be breaking the law, and the doctor who gave an anaesthetic and assisted him would also, technically, be breaking the law. Also I welcome this Clause which has the intention of allowing these distinguished foreign and Commonwealth doctors to come to this country in order to demonstrate to us new methods of treatment which they have worked out and practised, and of which we have not as great knowledge as we should like to have.
But other foreign doctors who come to to this country are not so distinguished. They come over for post-graduate study, and we are very glad to have them. Lately there has been a development in this country—the British Post-graduate


Federation, a federation of hospitals and medical schools—to help the post-graduate instruction of doctors from abroad. In my early days when I was at this stage of studentship there was nothing of that sort in this country and I had to go to Vienna, Berlin and Heidelberg where I met many individuals from the Dominions and the Colonies who would have preferred to have come to this country. The instruction that is given to these students is by the examination of cases, lectures and operations on the dead subject, and with all that I am in complete agreement.
However, Clause 8 would permit these students to undertake medical work in our hospitals. They would be permitted to take jobs as house surgeons. Some doctors who come to this country are exceedingly well qualified and able men and perhaps just as good as any of the men and women qualified here, but—here I speak from experience as a teacher—some of them do not reach that standard. As I read this Clause they would be permitted to treat patients in a hospital or institution which is approved by the Council; but that, I feel, opens the door a little too wide. I know such doctors would be under the supervision of the physician or surgeon in charge, but they would have considerable responsibility when the physician or surgeon was not present, and they would also have to deal with emergencies. The suggestion is that they should only be allowed to practise in hospital, but I see dangers in that. If they were allowed to undertake private practice or perhaps work under the Executive Council in the new health scheme, their patients would at any rate have some choice, but the patients in the ward of a hospital would be placed under the charge of one of these doctors and have no choice at all.
The Clause requires to be slightly recast. It would be easy if instead of "employment" we said "demonstration and instruction." That would cover the first class of distinguished surgeons and physicians who come to show us new methods, and instead of:
… a hospital or other institution approved by the Council …
we should say, "a teaching hospital," because there supervision is more complete. I know that according to the Bill the hospital or institution has to be approved by the General Medical Council,

but I think we are giving the General Medical Council too much power in this Bill. It may consider too much the needs and desires of the medical profession and not sufficiently the welfare of the people. One can contemplate that to earn dollars or for other reasons we might want to encourage gentlemen from the sunny shores of Sierra Leone or the backwoods of America to come here and practise in hospitals although they might not be as well qualified as most British doctors who undertake work in this country, and many people would consider that most undesirable. This Clause should be tightened up a little so that foreign doctors may work not in any hospital but only in teaching hospitals, and instead of:
… employment in a medical capacity
the Clause should read:
… demonstration and instruction.
What I have said has been on rather minor points but they are important, and I believe that this otherwise first-class Bill might be improved in the few ways I have suggested.

11.45 a.m.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I wish to add my words of welcome to this very satisfactory Measure, which will remove a considerable amount of anxiety and uncertainty from many foreign doctors. My few words of criticism are that it is probably a year or two late, as those people who have been in this country, some for as many as eight or ten years, have had worry and anxiety about their future. This Bill regularises the position of some very highly distinguished refugee doctors who came to this country when they escaped from Nazi oppression at least ten years ago, and it also regularises the position of those foreign doctors who hold British degrees and have every reason to practise here except for the fact that they happen to be of foreign nationality. It also regularises the position of those alien doctors and Commonwealth doctors holding alien degrees who have served this country and the Allied cause and have even served in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and one is delighted that we are doing this very just thing in regularising their position.
Will the Minister tell us if, when they are fully registered, they will have the same facilities as a British doctor with a British degree? Will they be able to


practise in any part of the country they wish? Will they have the same professional freedom as a British doctor? It would be good if the Minister could enlarge upon that and make it clear. It would appear from the Bill that the General Medical Council will undertake some sort of screening and will decide from whom registration shall be withheld. Can the Minister tell us whether the General Medical Council will make this decision purely upon medical qualifications or service, or in what way?
I welcome Clause 7 very much because it would appear that the Minister has changed his mind. Should the General Medical Council refuse to allow an individual to earn his livelihood in this country, he will be able to appeal to the Privy Council against that decision. That is a most just, fair and welcome arrangement. It rather contrasts with the arrangements under the National Health Service Act where a British practitioner who is not allowed to practise medicine in the Health Service is, therefore, unable to earn his own livelihood. He does not have the same privilege as this foreign doctor of appealing to such an august and official body. I hope that extending this privilege to a foreign doctor means that the Minister will make the same facilities available to British doctors so that they will be able to earn their own living after the appointed day under the National Health Service Act.
I wish to reinforce a question asked by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). What is the position of foreign dentists and foreign doctors? Are we to have another Bill, or are there no foreign dentists and foreign nurses, or what is the position? Do they not require a Bill to legalise their position? I am sure this Bill will be welcomed by the medical profession—in fact I know that it is—because it brings at least 3,000, and possibly 4,000, doctors into a very hard-pressed medical service which will be even more hard-pressed after the appointed day next July. Or should one call it "the expected day" or "the not to be expected day"? I am not quite sure what the position is. This is a Measure which will be welcomed; I am sure it is a most satisfactory Measure, and, therefore, I have very great pleasure in giving it my support.

11.50 a.m.

Mrs. Ridealgh: I welcome this Bill, and I apologise to the Minister for not being here earlier, because he may have dealt with a point on which I would like to have some information. I would like to know the position of one of my constituents, a person for whom I was able to obtain permission to enter this country last year. She is a German woman doctor who was practising before the war in Germany, and she and her husband, who also was a doctor, had to flee with their children, but were caught in Paris. They were both put into concentration camps. The husband was taken away and she does not know what happened to him. When
she was released by the British, the children were brought to this country, but she was not allowed to come here at that time. Eventually, I was able to get permission for her to come here, provided she would do domestic work, which she agreed to do. She has not been practising in this country, although she is a fully qualified doctor, and I would like the Minister to let me know what effect this Bill has upon the position of this constituent of mine.

11.52 a.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: The only contribution that I will make to this Debate which might be regarded as controversial, will be to take up the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), whose contributions to the Debates of this House, especially on questions of public health and medical questions, we always welcome. He advanced the argument, which is an un- assailable argument, that in accepting this Bill the medical profession have shown extreme generosity. I should think they have. Not many professions would welcome the addition of 3,500 non-British doctors to their number; many professions would object. Following this statement, with which I agree, the hon. Gentleman went further and said that because they had shown such generosity, they should show equal generosity in accepting the provisions of another Act, to which we all know many of them thoroughly object. I cannot quite reconcile that argument and that point of view.
I welcome this Bill because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said, the position of many of these temporarily registered men


was somewhat difficult. Many of them are old men. Most of them come under Clause 2. If this Bill had not been introduced, after 3rst December they would have had to exercise a choice, and the only choice before them, so far as I can see, would have been to leave this country; to pass the medical examinations for a degree or qualification—which might be very difficult for them—or to enter some other work or profession. I have taken great interest in this matter, because in the first Session during the war, I moved a Motion on this question before the Temporary Registration Regulation was passed. I have come into contact with many of these men, and I know that their position would have been very precarious after 31st December if this Measure had not been introduced.
It is quite true that this country gave asylum and protection to these men, who came here to escape from Nazi oppression, and for other reasons. Indeed, this country has given protection to such people over the centuries, and on the whole I think this country has gained in the process. I am quite sure that in this instance it has gained. After all, many of these men who came here under the temporary registration scheme made very valuable contributions to the national cause at a time when we were very hard pressed. We know there were enormous demands on the medical profession of this country; many had to go into the Forces, and the profession was very attenuated and hard pressed in the civilian areas. These men came to the rescue of this country to a remarkable degree in certain areas at a time which was certainly difficult, and I know many of them have made sacrifices.
I have one case in mind. According to the high principles of my profession we do not advertise, so I will not mention the name of this individual. He had a clinic in Europe, famous throughout the world, and he was making a fabulous income—something in the nature of £20,000 a year. He came to this country in 1939, and accepted a post under the war Emergency Hospitals Scheme at £350 a year. He was afterwards engaged in a very big clinic for miners in this country, where he has done invaluable work in connection with rheumatism. Indeed, he has had some Ministers of the Crown

under his treatment. He has certainly made his contribution.
I would draw the attention of the Minister, in particular, to Clause 4. This Clause certainly opens a much wider field. Many will come in under this Clause about whose qualifications—not their academic qualification but their capacity for general practice—we know very little. The standard of efficiency established by the General Medical Council in this country is not only in the interests of the doctors but in the interests of the protection of the public. Those high standards of efficiency, character, and education, enable them to treat the sick efficiently. This Clause will bring in a large number about whose capacity there will be some doubt, and although there is a probationary period under the Clause.—six months, I believe—before they can be granted their qualification, I think the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether some form of examination—an ad hoc examination—should be undertaken to protect the public. Perhaps under this scheme there will be a certain amount of flooding of the profession by medical men whose capacity may be in doubt. I put that suggestion to the Minister, and I hope he will look into it.
With that proviso, I am sure we all agree that the Measure is necessary. I think it should benefit this country, and, incidentally, a large number of people to whom this country gave its protection, in time of danger and many of whom have already been granted naturalisation as British subjects.

11.59 a.m.

Mr. Symonds: Nearly everyone who has spoken so far on this Bill has been a member of the medical profession. I would like to add my welcome to it merely as a layman. I took an interest in the details of this Measure during the Recess, when I was approached by an
American woman doctor who was very anxious to know whether its terms would
cover her case, which is an interesting case. She came to this country early in the war and worked here under the E.M.S. until 1943, when she had to return to America owing to the serious illness of her father. After that, she tried to get back to this country but was not able to do so. She could get only as far as Jamaica where she served for the rest of the war. In 1945, she was allowed to


come back to this country, but only as a student, although she had been practising here, under supervision, during the war. She wanted to stay in this country permanently, and asked for permission to follow her normal profession. That permission was not granted, and for a long time all she was allowed to do was to work as a laboratory assistant in a synthetic resin factory. Instead of doctoring she was making glue.
I took this case up with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and, I am glad to say, he replied that he would be prepared to receive an application from this lady to become a doctor again, within the restrictions which were laid down in the war—that she could practise as an assistant, or in an institution. I hope that by now her application has gone through, and that the glue factory's loss will be Merthyr Tydfil's gain. That case illustrated to me how important it is to clear up satisfactorily these wartime problems. After all, it was in our own interests that we admitted foreign doctors to this country, and it would be a very churlish thing to say now, "Thank you very much; you have served our purpose, and now you can go." I am very glad indeed to hear that we have met their wishes, and I was particularly glad to hear this morning that the medical profession itself has very largely sponsored this Bill.
The Minister, in introducing the Bill, said that no major change is involved in the governing law. By that I understand that the reciprocity provisions of the Medical Act, 1886, still stand. This question is one which needs looking into, because what does reciprocity mean? It means that if there is a reciprocal agreement between this country and another, any and every one of the doctors of that other country could come here to stay. As my right hon. Friend said, there have been three reciprocal agreements with foreign countries—one with Belgium, which expired in 1920, one with Italy, which went on until 1940, and the other with Japan, which went on until 1942. This means that for the whole period between, the two wars, no American or French doctor could come here to set up in practice, but that an unlimited number of Italian and Japanese doctors could, which seems a rather fantastic situation. Clause 8 is, in a sense, the thin end of the wedge. It is a break in the reci-

procity arrangement and, under it, distinguished foreign doctors can come here and exercise their skill without involving any British registered doctors in unprofessional conduct if they assist them in any way. Members of the professions are very apt at times to exhort the trade unions of industry to abandon restrictive practices, but as I see it, this reciprocity business is a restrictive practice in itself. The medical profession, having sponsored this Bill, might very well look into this whole question of reciprocity, and see if it can be abandoned.
Everyone realises that we need far more doctors than we have now, and that we shall need many more for many years to come. Surely, a better arrangement than reciprocity would be some alteration in the law so as to enable the Minister, advised, of course, by the General Medical Council, to accept into this country any foreign doctor who is considered suitable. At the moment, as I have said, Americans or Frenchmen cannot be accepted but, given a change in the law, I am sure it would be possible to discriminate and to admit fully qualified acceptable doctors, no matter what their country of origin. Clause 8 makes a small breach in this reciprocity arrangement, and I hope it will be looked at again with a view to ensuring that if a fully qualified doctor wants to come here, and is an acceptable person, there need be no legal bar to prevent his coming.

12.5 p.m.

Mr. Linstead: Like other Members who have taken part in this Debate, I welcome this Bill both for what it does and because, as has been said, it opens a door, which I think many of us desire to see opened, to the wider recognition of professional qualifications across national boundaries. It is part of a general international and European settlement in which I think it is appropriate that this country, because of its special war record, should be taking the lead. The Bill can also be welcomed because of the contribution which the men who will come on to the medical and pharmaceutical registers will be able to make in the launching of our National Health Service next year. The House may be aware that I have been particularly associated with the pharmaceutical side of the negotiations which have resulted in this Bill, and I can say from my personal experience that the


Polish pharmacists who have been trained and examined in this country, in anticipation of this Bill, have been found to be men of exceptionally high professional standing, whom we are very glad indeed to have as recruits to our manpower.
If I have any reservation about this Bill it is about the date, which, I think, has perhaps given a little concern to the Minister, although he has had to accept the situation as it is presented in the Bill. There will be hard cases of men who are on the wrong side of the guillotine when it comes down on 4th August, and I think it is a pity that it has not been found possible for the medical profession to do what the pharmaceutical profession have done in this matter. The pharmacists have said, "We are not going to hedge round this registration with provisos and restrictions of one kind and another; we shall take a broad, general power to bring on to the pharmaceutical register any foreign pharmacist who can satisfy us that his character, personal standing, and professional skill and knowledge are of the right quality." If necessary, that will be done by examination, although in many cases there will not be any examination.
It is in that spirit that a country such as this ought to approach any legislation
which is of a liberal character and in keeping with the traditions built up before and during the war. If there is any defect in the Bill, it is that the medical sections of it are rather circumscribed in that way. If it is not too late, I ask the Minister to do something to pick up the doctor who ought to be registered, but w ho will be prevented from being registered by the accident of not arriving in this country before 4th August next year. Otherwise, there will be a few men who will feel bitter because by the accident of date they are not entitled to registration. That is the one flaw in the Bill which, otherwise, I sincerely welcome.

12.10 p.m.

Dr. Segal: As one who had the privilege of serving for four years overseas during the war, and coming into close contact with many foreign doctors who rendered outstanding service to the Allied cause in the Armed Forces, I would like to associate myself with what has been said about this Bill, and to offer it a genuine and sincere welcome. Many doctors of foreign origin who served in the

R.A.M.C. and the R.A.F. medical service during the war were men of outstanding character and qualifications. They were sent to serve in many remote parts of the world, where they rendered first-class service. I recall arriving on a desert landing strip on the far North-East corner of the coast of Arabia, in one of the worst climates of the world, where drinking water had to be brought by ship a distance of over 200 miles, and finding a small R.A.F. unit of 150 men, engaged on maintenance work on our planes travelling across the South Arabian route to India. Here was stationed a doctor who had qualified in Germany, who was himself a first-class surgeon, and who had served for many years on the staff of one of the largest hospitals in Berlin. He was a source not only of tremendous help but of real inspiration to our boys working in this remote and desolate part of the world. His case could be multiplied over and over again.
I came into contact with foreign doctors, serving in the uniform of the R.A.M.C., in the remotest corners of Iraq and Anatolia and on the rugged heights of Kurdistan—men who were really a tremendous acquisition to our war effort. To my mind it is quite unthinkable that now this tremendous effort of the years of war is ended, these men should be cast adrift, and their valuable services denied to us. I cannot conceive that, whatever opposition may come to this Bill from any quarter of the medical profession, it can come from any of the doctors who have had the privilege of serving overseas in the medical services during the war. The more contact we had with these foreign doctors, the more we felt ourselves privileged to know them. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) spoke of the medical profession not only as a liberal profession but also as a generous profession. I am proud to feel that this Bill may render it a still more liberal profession, and even to a greater extent, if possible, a more generous profession.
There is one aspect which I would like to stress. Not only is it a liberal and a generous profession, but it is also an international profession which knows no boundaries in its efforts to bring relief and succour to those in need of medical help. From every point of view, I would like to add my own few words of welcome to


this Bill. Of course, it will need some modification in its progress through the Committee stage, and we know that it can be improved to a moderate degree, but its main principles are sound, and, I believe, of great advantage to the people of this country. I think we ought to deny that the doctors have a vested interest in disease. They are at once glad to adopt any new methods and new ideas. I believe that the influx of foreign doctors may be to them a source of new and added strength. Doctors have always been known to subordinate their own personal interests to the interests of their patients—their leisure, comfort, sleep and domestic life—I have no doubt that the new doctors now to be admitted under this Bill will rapidly become absorbed into the fellowship of British medicine, and will not only live up to its high traditions but will make their own distinctive contribution to the progress and welfare of this country. I would like very warmly to welcome the Bill.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: In the first words that I utter on this Bill, I would like to emphasise something which was said by the hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal), and other hon. Members who spoke before him. I am glad that in this Debate we have not been confined, as occasionally happens with a specialised Bill of this kind, to speeches entirely by members of the medical profession. Speaking as a layman—and in this House of Commons I think it is essential that we should have all points of view—I welcome the appeal made by more than one Member today that the Bill should be used as an opportunity for widening the whole scope of intercourse between the medical professions. There can be no doubt that in the minds of almost every one, learning, and, perhaps, the greatest learning of all—the science of healing—should be made available to the whole human race. I hope that the position which will be taken up under this Bill, and the fact that we are allowing foreign doctors and doctors from the Dominions to settle here, will immensely widen the international use of knowledge which is required for healing.
When I first picked up the Bill, I was a little doubtful of its origin. After the speeches of yesterday, I rather wondered

whether anything good could possibly come from another place, but I realised, when I read the Bill with attention and care, that this is one of the occasions when the other place has performed yet another useful service. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health on the fact that he has now progressed far enough to realise that he also can get good from another place, and I hope that his progress will be continued.
I notice that in this Bill we are dealing with these cases through the General Medical Council, and I would remind the House that, on more than one occasion, I have heard hon. Members, particularly from the other side, saying very unkind things about the General Medical Council. They intimated that the General Medical Council were rather too near what, I believe, in ordinary language, is called the "closed shop." I welcome this opportunity to say that the General Medical Council have given very valuable services to the country. As one who certainly has benefited from the medical profession, I am glad to be able to pay this tribute to doctors as a whole. They are undertaking under this Bill the very difficult work of selecting from this very large class of men, running into some thousands and coming from a very wide area, those who should be accepted here.
I am not showing, in any way, any dissatisfaction with the Bill. I realise the very high standard of the medical profession in this country—and, if I may say so, the Scottish doctors have by no means the lowest standard—but I would ask for some assurance from the Minister that the standard which we expect will be kept up by these men coming from abroad. I feel sure that the British Medical Association will see to that, but, as a mere layman, I think it should be emphasised that in accepting these people from abroad we have a right to know sufficient about their examinations and experience to be able to assure the ordinary person in this country—and this is the thing that I really want—that they will be up to a reasonably high standard. That is a point which has been made before, and I think it is one which should be emphasised.
I would like to ask the Minister about a small point which I think should be made clear. In Clause I, and, indeed, right through the Bill, the word "he" is used.


Lawyers would undoubtedly be inclined to think that "he" included both men and women doctors. I think it is essential that we should be told whether the word really means doctors of both sexes. I think it does, but I am not a lawyer. We ought to receive a definite assurance that that is the position under the Bill; that both sexes are included, and that there is going to be no sex bar. I hope the Minister will be able to deal with that point when he replies because, if he does not, I am afraid it might lead to Amendments at another stage of the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to tell me now whether I am right in assuming that "he" does mean both sexes? I am sorry that the Minister does not seem to know.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member ought not to be rude; I intended, with the permission of the House, to reply.

Mr. Williams: I thought the right hon. Gentleman might just say "Yes," and save himself trouble afterwards. I am only trying to help him.

Mr. Bevan: The word "he" is obviously a comprehensive one, and includes both sexes.

Mr. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for telling me. Dealing wan lawyers is rather different from dealing with doctors. Doctors do know the difference between "he" and "she," and it is quite possible that doctors may take a more exacting line than lawyers on this. That is why I wanted to make it quite clear at the present time.
There is one other thing on which I would like to congratulate the Minister, and that is on the content of Clause 7. The right hon. Gentleman is really coming on; he is allowing to go into this Bill a proper right of appeal. That is something which is wholly British, and something which is welcomed by everyone in this House. I am glad that he has moved forward, and is progressive in this particular matter. I have never been among those who did not think that he might progress at some time, and I most sincerely congratulate him on that matter. I wish him success with this Bill and success in advancing closer, as indeed, he does in this Bill, towards the general prin-

ciple in which I and hon. Members of this side of the House believe—the development of international knowledge for the use and help of the people of the world as a whole.

12.24 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: I do not intend to take up the time of the House by attempting a general survey of this very useful Bill, or to emulate the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who, under circumstances of exceptional difficulty, has maintained his usual provocative attitude towards the Minister.

Mr. C. Williams: If I was in any way provocative, I hope I may be excused. I was only trying to congratulate and praise the Minister.

Mr. Skinnard: The hon. Gentleman has the most peculiar way which has yet been observed in this Parliament of attempting to praise Ministers. In my opinion, one small point which he made cannot be considered as having any substance at all. It was his reference to another place as a place of initiative in legislation. Nobody on any side of the House denies that is so. Indeed, in this particular matter, it has been a very great convenience, for which I have no doubt the Minister is amply grateful.
Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) and the hon. Member for Torquay, I am a layman in this matter, but I am glad it is possible for a layman to point out the valuable contribution made by the Pharmaceutical Society in the preparation of this Bill. The National Health Service is not exclusively a matter for doctors; indeed, it has been devised practically entirely from the point of view of the patient. In this Bill, the medical profession has shown an attitude which I am sure all laymen in this House will welcome. In contradistinction to the limitation, in Part I, which was pointed out by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), Part II of the Bill seems to be even more generous. It has not been noted by any hon. Member who has yet spoken that a provision for examination in special cases has been inserted in the pharmaceutical part of the Bill, the omission of which the hon. Member for Denbigh regretted in what I might term the "medical" part of the Bill. The provision for the registration as pharmacists of persons holding qualifications granted


outside the United Kingdom is very comprehensive.
I think that provision will be a very great help to His Majesty's Government next year when the National Health Service Act comes into operation, because, while it is true that a great increase is necessary in the number of doctors in this country, it has not so often been pointed out that there is an equal need for a great increase in the number of pharmacists. Indeed, this is one instance where the preponderance of medical Members in this House, as against a comparative absence of pharmacists, rather tends to lay undue emphasis on one side of a great and important partnership. For that reason, I was particularly glad that we had the opportunity today of listening to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) who, if he has fewer professional colleagues in the House to support him, nevertheless showed that the pharmaceutical side of the healing profession is worthily and adequately represented here.
As one who has derived great benefit in the past from the ministrations of foreign-born doctors, and, indeed, of foreign-born chemists, I very sincerely welcome this Bill. As has been stated by other hon. Members, learning knows no national frontiers. Access to knowledge is the right of all who live on this globe, and if this Bill is a demonstration of the determination of this country to admit the international implications of medical learning, then I think that the whole world—not only this House and this country—will judge it a very great and important gesture.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I can intervene again only with the permission of hon. Members. Perhaps it would be regarded as discourteous if I did not attempt to reply to some of the points raised. It is always a great difficulty, when a Minister has to introduce a Bill which he hopes will be non-controversial, to know how long, or how short, he should make his speech. If he makes it too short, he will be accused of being perfunctory, while if he makes it too long, he will be accused of being tedious. He is always in trouble, because he knows that if he does not say certain things, hon. Members will point out what he has not said. During this Debate, I recognised that we might, perhaps, have avoided some of the speeches which have

been made if I had spoken a little longer, and explained one or two of the Clauses which I did not mention. It may be, however, that that is too optimistic, for, after some Parliamentary experience, I do not think it is possible for any Minister to make a speech which will avoid other speeches.
Some suggestions have been made which I very much welcome. Indeed, I have no reason to be other than very pleased with the reception which has been given to the Measure. I did not spend much time in paying tribute to the work these doctors have done, because I think it is universally appreciated. I know many foreign doctors myself, and it is indeed a fact that the genius of the
British people has been refreshed from time to time by freshets from other countries, and the experience during the war has been no exception to that. The medical profession has benefited enormously from the doctors who have had to flee from their countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) cast a little doubt on the provisions for giving special facilities for temporary medical visitors, and he spoke about post-graduate medical education. I was rather grieved by what he said, because I am an enthusiast about the provision of all the facilities we can possibly provide in this country for postgraduate students from abroad. I believe that if we can provide those facilities, we shall make London and Edinburgh, and Great Britain generally, the medical Mecca of the world. We have not got enough post-graduate facilities now. I have been encouraging the Royal Colleges and the hospitals, by all means that lie in my power, to give facilities for postgraduate education.
It is a great grief to me that we are not able to provide enough facilities for people inside the Commonwealth. It is to me a tragic fact that medical students from India, Africa, Canada, New Zealand and from the Colonies sometimes go to Canada, sometimes to America, because we have not got facilities in London. I shall do my utmost to make it impossible for students to go elsewhere merely because they have not got facilities here, in London. Therefore, I was rather grieved at what I thought was a cold douche on the facilities we are giving in this Bill to post-graduate medical stu-


dents. In any case, all that we are really doing is regularising what now exists, because, as some hon. Members have pointed out, it is not lawful for a British doctor to associate with a person who is not on the medical register in this country. All that we are doing in this Bill is to regularise a practice which already exists. These students will be in hospitals, under supervision, and, therefore, there will be protection for the patients in that respect.
I have also been asked a question about doctors who are not on the temporary register, and who are not, at the moment, as it were, identifiable. It is intended under one Clause, I think Clause 4, that these doctors shall be on a temporary register, so that their knowledge and experience can be verified, and then permanently registered if they prove to be satisfactory. It must be remembered that we are not only dealing with the temporary register during the war, we are not only dealing with the Polish Resettlement Act, but also with a number of doctors whom I have mentioned in certain categories, who for a variety of reasons have been here but have not been able to get on the temporary register, and who will still have an opportunity of applying. There will be a provisional registration for them in order that their experience and knowledge may first be tested before they are permanently registered.
I have been asked a question about dentists. Foreign dentists can practise without further provision for registration if their qualifications are acceptable to the General Medical Council. I have been asked about nurses. Nurses with suitable qualifications can practise in this country. There is no need for us to make any special provision in the Bill. I have already answered the question of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) about "he" or "she." Fortunately it will not be the doctors who will be considering the Measure. All Acts of Parliament are construed by the courts, and not by any particular profession, and we can look to the courts to have sufficient knowledge to be able to construe "he" and "she," if it is necessary.

Mr. C. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement about the courts, but I think that the General Medi-

cal Council comes into this, and I wanted to be quite sure about them. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for helping me on this point.

Mr. Bevan: In conclusion, I wish to say a word about the General Medical Council and appeals to the Privy Council. I have been taxed, by two hon. Members opposite with being slightly inconsistent. The fact is that we are here dealing with professional qualifications. That is an entirely different matter from dealing with whether a person in the Health Service as a whole is giving suitable service; it is the difference between whether he is qualified and whether he is a suitable person. Therefore, there is no analogy whatever between this provision and the National Health Service scheme itself.
I do not wish to delay the House any further. I am grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have received the Bill. May I add my hope that the various references that have been made to the passage of the Bill through the Committee do not mean that the Committee stage will be unduly prolonged. It is absolutely essential that this Bill should be on the Statute Book before the end of the year, or irreparable damage will be done to a large number of reputable persons.

Mr. Linstead: Can the Minister hold out any hope whatever of the modification of the final dates?

Mr. Bevan: I do not believe it is possible for me to reconsider that date because it would be a breach of faith. As has been said, this Bill is an agreed Measure. Of course, the House of Commons is supreme, and can do what it wishes, but it is obvious that once a Bill of this sort is introduced, unless there is a closing date, we may get an influx of people from abroad, whose background we cannot check, and of whose qualifications we know nothing. The whole thing will be difficult to control. We must have a date. I agree at once that the date may cause hardship, but unfortunately it is not possible to avoid it.

Mr. Linstead: There is no date in the second part of the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I agree.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Simmons.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.38 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It was over a year ago—in November, 1946—that I presented a similar Measure to the House. That Act had two main provisions. First, it empowered the National Debt Commissioners to make advances to the Public Works Loans Board for local loans up to a maximum of £250 million. The advances so far made amount to £220 million. The House will see that there is only about £30 million left. This being so, the powers conferred on the National Debt Commissioners by the present Act will be exhausted so far as we can judge early in January.
The second thing done by the last Act was that it empowered the Board to incur commitments to lend up to a maximum of £500 million. That was an overall sum. It had to include the £250 million which they were empowered to advance. So far, the commitments to lend, plus the advances actually made by the National Debt Commissioners through the Board, amount to £445 million. The actual balance left is approximately £55 million. Therefore, it is necessary that the Board should receive further lending powers without delay. The present Act has been in force for just over 13 months. When we asked for the powers which were conferred when it was
introduced we intimated that the amounts then agreed to might last for over a year. In fact, they have lasted for 13 months and, with the balance still in hand, they may last for another month.
The new Bill is very short. It is simple and contains only four Clauses. The first Clause authorises the £250 million, to which I have referred, as a maximum sum which may be advanced by the National Debt Commissioners to the Public Works Loan Board for local loans until the next Measure is passed. Clause 2 authorises the Public Works Loan Board to incur commitments to lend up to £400 million in all. Until the act is superseded they can

actually advance the £250 million to which I have referred and promise to advance a further £150 million, making a total of £400 million. Clause 3 authorises the writing off from the assets of the Local Loans Fund of the outstanding principal of certain loans made in the past under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923. The details of this are given in the Schedule and also in the Financial Memorandum. Although these loans are written off from the Fund, it does not necessarily mean that they will be a total loss. Though the Fund will no longer have any interest in attempting to recover them, the Exchequer will take over that work and do what it can to do so. Clause 4 remits certain arrears of interest which are now completely irrecoverable. The reason why the interest must be mentioned separately from the principal is that arrears of interest have never been entered or looked upon as part of the assets of the Local Loans Fund.
I may be asked how this Bill, with powers to make loans and to enter into commitments up to £400 million, squares with the announcement of the Government that they intend to cut expenditure on capital investment. No doubt it has been noticed that we are asking for powers to make advances up to £250 million, the same amount as was asked for last year when the present Act was passed. There is to be a Debate on the White Paper which has been issued setting out the policy of the Government in relation to capital investment. I am sure that the House has no desire to anticipate that Debate or to discuss that side of the matter now.
Perhaps I should remind the House that the last Act asked for £500 million as an overall sum. The total we ask for here, which will include both advance and commitments, is only £400 million. When this Bill has been passed—as was the case with its predecessor—all commitments entered into by the Public Works Loan Board under the powers conferred upon them under the previous Act, will be carried forward. They will form part of the commitments under the present Bill. The majority of the commitments already entered into are for housing and ancillary projects. As those who have read the White Paper will remember, such projects are scheduled to be completed.
The commitments and advances tinder the present Act amount to £445 million.
Of these, actual advances have amounted to £220 million. Therefore, the commitments which will be carried forward under this Bill amount to £225 million. Those amounts, as and when they can be advanced, will be taken from the £400 million which we are asking the House to sanction under the present Measure. Although we appear to be asking for powers to permit advances up to £400 million we are only granting power to the Public Works Loan Board to advance and commit themselves to a further £200 million, if we take into account the present commitments which will be carried forward. That is a great decrease compared with last year, when we asked for power to enter into commitments up to £;500 million. The carry-forward last year was only £130 million, so that the new advances and commitments then gave the Public Works Loan Commissioners power to go to a total amount of £370 million, as compared with the £200 million I have just mentioned.
It is hoped that the amounts under this Bill will enable the Commissioners to go forward for an appreciable time, but it is impossible for us to say how long it will be before we have to come back to the House for a renewed authorisation. We hope that this Bill will run, if possible, for as long as its predecessor, but I would not like to commit the Government to a definite forecast. Hon. Members will see that we are not asking for nearly as much as we asked for last year and that the reason why we want the money is that the Loan Commissioners are fast running short of funds. For these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.

12.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We on this side of the House are not satisfied with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. It is true that we have the important Paper on Capital Investment in 1948, and it is true that it is to be debated, but I should have thought that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would have taken every opportunity of enlightening the House on at least some of the issues contained in that White Paper. It will not be possible, without repeated Debates in this House, for hon. Members and the country to grasp

the implications of that formidable document, and the repercussions it may have on the life of this country.
As I understand, the Financial Secretary said that he was asking for a sum considerably less than the Government asked for last year, that the last Act asked for £500 million, whereas this Measure will empower the expenditure of £400 million, of which commitments amount to some £200 million, allowing only some £200 million of fresh money. I appreciate the difficulties of the Financial Secretary under conditions such as this. I myself, when Financial Secretary, had
to introduce the Public Works Loans Bill following the financial crisis of 1931. On that occasion a good many questions were asked about the shrinkage which was to take place, and to what extent the Government measures were adequate to deal with it.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that a considerable proportion of the commitments made were in respect of housing, and that the housing programme would continue until the run-off began to show. The period of the commencement of this run-off, and the effect it will have upon our circumstances, is of vital importance not merely to individuals in this country but to the local authorities and to the great building trade—the trade with a million people—which is looking anxiously to see how this run-off will develop and what preparations they will have to make to transfer a considerable quantity of their labour to other fields of activity. If the runoff which is
predicted takes place in the second part of next year, a considerable diminution in what one might call the carcass construction of houses is almost bound to take place if efforts are to be concentrated on finishing the houses. As I understand it, a considerable restriction is being made upon the proposals to commence construction, so that again an imbalance will take place during that period. Every effort was first directed to finishing the hulls of houses and those whose work lay in the later stages were relatively in difficulties. Now, as the hump passes, the carcass builders will be out of work—though not necessarily out of employment, if they are transferred to other employment—and great pressure will fall upon those trades engaged in finishing the hulls already constructed.
It is quite true that these are general considerations which will be reviewed in


the Debate, but they will require more than one Debate before they are fully appreciated. This Bill involving £400 million has an appendix showing the unfortunate circumstances which overtook a farmer of Nettlehill Farm, Uphall, Westlothian, Mr. Thomas Cook of Saltaugh Grange Farm in the County of York, Mr. Ernest William Nickerson and Mr. Charles Alfred Peck of the Glebe and Rectory Farms, Thoresway, in the County of Lincoln, and of Mr. Thomas Ford Robinson of Nuthill, Wranglands, and Weghill Farms, Burstwick and Preston, Hull, in the East Riding of the County of York——

Mr. C. Williams: One other—another Scotsman.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, but that is a case of arrears of interest—which, as the Financial Secretary properly said, does not fall into exactly the same category—on sums borrowed by Mr. Alexander Fowlie and Mrs. Mary Ann Fowlie, tenants of the farm of Mid Culsh, New Deer, Aberdeenshire. I think the Financial Secretary will agree that this is a striking example of the way in which our financial affairs sometimes, like the trunk of the elephant, are used to uproot an oak tree and sometimes to pick up a pin, because these are small transactions in comparison with the gigantic sums, and still more gigantic issues, affected by the White Paper.
It is impossible for us to carry the matter further just now when the whole financial policy of the Government is obviously undergoing a great recasting. The terms of this Bill foreshadow that to some extent, and the White Paper describes it in somewhat greater detail. However, a great recasting of financial policy should not be confined merely to one or two occasions in the House of Commons. Every possible opportunity should be taken of explaining the crisis in which the country finds itself, and the measures which the Government intend to take to deal with that crisis. Otherwise, sudden measures of great stringency fall upon an unprepared public and give rise to disappointment, if not panic. The Financial Secretary has lost an opportunity this afternoon, but I hope it may even yet be possible for him to add a little to the rather circumscribed statement he vouchsafed to the House at the beginning of this Debate.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I rise to support my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in his comments on this Bill. As he said, it is indeed a curious fact in this Bill, that small items in the Financial Memorandum covering only some £16,000 or £17,000 of debts, are dealt with in great detail, and yet the Financial Secretary was unable to offer any information as to how the big figures included in the main part of the Bill are broken up. I shall not deal with the small debts at the beginning of the Bill except to point out that, somehow or other, two Scotsmen got away with it, two Yorkshiremen and one farmer from Lincolnshire, and that apparently none of the honest people South and West of the Thames have done otherwise than pay up all their debts. I am not astonished that my right hon. and gallant Friend omitted Aberdeen, because I always though they were never in debt up there.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not asking for quite so much this year as last year because of the financial cuts under the White Paper. He then used a phrase which has now become common form on the Treasury Bench, that we are some time, somewhere to have a Debate on this matter in the immediate future, and that, therefore, he could not say anything today. In other words, he has abdicated from his position as Financial Secretary to the Treasury in asking this House to grant loans. After all, we are the House of Commons; he is asking us for this money, and is not really telling us much except to say that some time in the future we may have some information if we are clever enough to get it out of Ministers.
I do not want to be unkind to the right hon. Gentleman, but he has had some days in which to prepare for the Second Reading of this Bill. He has terrific sources of information behind him and surely he could have been told how much is represented by the cuts. In all probability that must be something
in proportion to the total bill. I should like to know how much of this reduction—I will leave out the cuts because they may come on later—is due to the fact that during the last period which the Bill covers, no more money will be needed for temporary


housing. I think I am right in suggesting that on that account there should be a very considerable saving in the amount of these local loans.
Again, we are asking where we are on this matter. This is a very large amount of money for the purposes of loans. Is any of this money which is being granted in this
way going to the nationalised coal industry? I do not know; some of it may go there and some of it may not, but we have never been told. The right hon. Gentleman never told us of the details for which he wants this money. Again, as far as this money being used in any way is concerned, it might easily go—though I do not say I am technically correct, for I do not pretend to be—for use in the expenditure of £1,000 million for the nationalised railways. On the other hand, we may be asked for another loan for that on another occasion.
The usual practice of the Treasury, when they are bringing forward a Bill of this kind for such a considerable amount of money and when relating it to other loans not necessarily of the same type but not too dissimilar, is that they gave a greater explanation than we have had this morning in this matter. It may very well be that the right hon. Gentleman was not supplied with the answers to the points put by my right hon. and gallant Friend and myself, but there are other occasions on which this Bill will come before the House and I ask the Financial Secretary, with very great respect, to provide this information, remembering that the people of this country are continually being appealed to—now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and formerly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)—to loan money to the Government. It is very rarely that in this House we get a chance of probing how that money is used. This is an occasion where, I imagine, the money loaned to the Government is bound to come into the picture to some extent.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in future, in dealing with such matters as these, not to allow himself to be pushed into the background, but rather to tell those connected with the Treasury that the proud record of his office in the past compels him to tell the House and the

country as a whole what is being done, what the money is wanted for and why it is wanted. In my last few words I would only say that I am glad at any rate that the position is not quite so bad as it was 12 months ago.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can speak again only by leave of the House. If I might briefly reply to the points that have been made, the first point I would make is that this is only an enabling Bill, and therefore, it is quite obviously impossible for me to say how this money is to be split up, which was, I think, the phrase used by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It is an enabling Bill for the future, to empower the Public Works Loan Board to make advances by way of local loans. These local loans will go almost entirely to local authorities, who must, as the House will remember, come to the Treasury under the Act of 1945. They cannot make an issue or seek an advance on the Stock Exchange or in any other way, as they were able to do in the past.
This money is required to meet any commitments or advances which the Public Works Loans Board may desire to make from local loans funds. The Treasury and the Board act in conjunction with the Departments concerned. Normally, it would be the Ministry of Health, and it certainly is the Ministry of Health where housing and ancillary projects in England are in question. It is, therefore, quite impossible for me to give the hon. Member for Torquay any indication of how the figures will be broken up, as the money has not yet been advanced. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) called attention to the lists at the beginning of the Bill, and I understood him to draw some sort of analogy from the fact that there was a difference betwen the sums there and the possible changes that the White Paper will make when the cuts envisaged in capital expenditure are implemented.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I must not give a wrong impression to the right hon. Gentleman. I merely indicated that they were admittedly small sums, and that in comparison with the general sums mentioned both in the body of the Bill and in the White Paper, we could perhaps have dispensed with the Clause by Clause


analysis of the Bill which the Financial Secretary gave in favour of a much more general statement.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As I indicated, it was not for me to make a general statement on the Government's policy on capital investment, or on any changes which the Government contemplate in that direction. It would, in my view, have been clearly inappropriate and most certainly out of Order when, within a week or so, we are to have a full-dress Debate on the White Paper as such. A further reason why it would be inappropriate and wrong on my part to deal with capital expenditure is that today we are dealing with the very narrow issue of whether the House will or will not grant the Government the power to lend through the Public Works Loan Board certain sums, to local authorities in the main, for certain purposes.
There are signs that the local authorities in the future will not want so much money. Their future capital expenditure will presumably be reduced by the Government's policy on capital investment, hut, it would have been wrong of me to deal with this in its wider aspects, when I am only asking the House to pass this short, simple Measure with one single aim.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to keep on interrupting the right hon. Gentleman but to say a loan of £400 million is a narrow issue is in these days a little of an under-statement.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The issue is a narrow one, but the amount involved is large. Let me repeat, this is only an enabling Measure. We are not asking the House to lend this money to unspecified local authorities. We are asking the House to give us, through the National Debt Commissioners and the Public Works Loan Board, power to make advances and enter into commitments for sums which, in the aggregate, will not amount to more than £400 million between the time this Bill is passed and another one projected and agreed. I did not follow what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the losses, which are listed in the Financial Memorandum in some detail. I would point out to him, however, that these losses are agricultural losses. They have been incurred under the Act of 1923, and, if he will look at the details, he will see

they were almost entirely incurred under the Conservative Government in pre-war years.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to keep on interrupting but if the right hon. Gentleman trails his coat he must expect to get it trodden on. In fact, the loss incurred in the first of these items is a specific loss which came to fruition in 1931, after two years of Socialist Government.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It may have come to fruition in 1931, but that particular Government was a minority government and was only in office two years. The whole loss was not incurred in that particular year, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will find, in the main, that these losses were incurred in the inter-war years, when we had a Conservative Government in office. I think what I have said covers the main points put by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The House can have no serious criticism to make of the Bill as it stands or the amounts contained therein. I hope, therefore, that we may now get the Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Simmons.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of all arrears of interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of a loan to Alexander Fowlie and Mary Ann Fowlie."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

1.12 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: After the rather provocative remark by the Financial Secretary on the previous Debate, we cannot let this Financial Resolution go. He intimated that the real reason why we are incurring this expendi-


ture—and this is only a very narrow point indeed concerning Mary Ann Fowlie and Alexander Fowlie, who came from Aberdeen—has something to do with the Conservative Government of other years. He also used that rather stale excuse that everything that was done wrong at a certain time—in 1929 to 1931—was because the then Government had not an absolute majority. They had enough majority to put on the Closure on a great many occasions.
This is not a matter of policy. We could have raised it at considerable length on the Second Reading of the Bill. These debts are small debts, and no one blames the Government for them. But when the right hon. Gentleman tries to make out that we are to blame, it is completely unbecoming to his office. The right hon. Gentleman laughs. To make a provocative remark of that kind when we are trying in every way we can to get this Bill through fairly easily is unbecoming to his office. It would have been very awkward for the Government at this moment if we had divided on it. We have behaved very well, and all I would ask is that in future, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to get on with these things, not to provoke hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. It takes a lot to make me speak, and I only speak when I have something vital to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has, on this occasion, made use of reproaches which were unworthy.
So far as this small debt is concerned he has nothing to say about it, and I have nothing very much to say against it. Unless there is a Scotsman present who could give us real evidence of the character of these people, we might almost let this go. I would emphasise one thing. This is a comparatively small amount and the House of Commons is passing it, rightly, and giving a short time to it. It is a pity that the House of Commons does not give such careful consideration to the very much larger things with which it has to deal on some other occasions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

MANDATED AND TRUST TERRITORIES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

1.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Hon. Members will be aware that the United Kingdom Government played a prominent part in the drafting of that part of the United Nations Charter which deals with trusteeship. There is no legal obligation under the Charter to place mandated or other territories under the trusteeship system. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government felt it desirable to give a lead towards bringing the trusteeship system into operation, and they did so by offering to place under that system our mandated territories in Africa, entrusted to us under the policy of international regime and which were not ready for either self-government or independence. The Government's
policy regarding Tanganyika, Togoland and the Cameroons was announced in this House by the Prime Minister on 23rd January, 1946, and that policy was not challenged. The proposed terms of the trusteeship were laid before this House before being submitted to the United Nations for approval. Furthermore, the approved terms have since been laid before the House.
In regard to our Colonies and Protectorates, His Majesty's Government still adhere to the assurance given to this House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 23rd August, 1945. During the recently concluded Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, a resolution was tabled by another delegation urging us to place
some or all of our Colonies and Protectorates under trusteeship. The United Kingdom delegation vigorously opposed this suggestion which in the end was not carried. The present Bill is quite consistent with the previous policy of the Government and, indeed, makes no difference to the status of any of our non self-governing territories. The object of this Bill is to provide for the application of Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation made thereunder to the situation now obtaining as a result of the termination of the League of Nations and the creation of trust territories under the United Nations.


Certain mandates were set up by the
League. Of these, ten are now administered as trust territories under the Charter of the United Nations. First of all, there is that part of Togoland which is under British administration, that part of the Cameroons which is under British administration, and Tanganyika. They are all administered under United Kingdom trusteeship. New Guinea is under Australian trusteeship; Western Samoa is under New Zealand trusteeship; French Togoland and the French Cameroons are under French trusteeship; and Ruanda-Urundi is under Belgian trusteeship.
The placing of these territories under trusteeship did not involve any change in the administering authority. That is to say, the country responsible for their administration to the League is the same now under the present system. There was, however, a change in the case of the former Japanese Mandates in the Pacific. These naturally are no longer under Japanese trusteeship, but they have been placed under the trusteeship of the United States. There has been a slight change in the case of Nauru Island. The Mandate for Nauru was conferred by the League of Nations on His Britannic Majesty. The administration was actually carried out by Australia with the consent of the Governments of the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The trusteeship agreement, as approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, nominates the Governments of Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand as the joint authority for the administration of Nauru. But there is also provision for the actual administration to be carried out by Australia unless otherwise agreed by the three Governments concerned. As to the other Mandates set up by the League, three have become four independent States; they are Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan. The only other two mandates which were established by the League were Palestine and South West Africa, and the Union Government have declared their intention to continue administering South West Africa in accordance with the Mandate.
The Charter of the United Nations provides for the administration of trust territories in one of three ways: first by a single member, secondly by two or more members jointly, and thirdly by the United Nations as a whole. Article 77 of

the Charter, which is the relevant Article here, states that the territories which may be placed under trusteeship need not be limited to former mandates. It has been necessary to examine the effects of the changes I have mentioned on the laws of this country. Many Acts of Parliament apply or refer to mandated territories. Some refer to mandates exercised by His Majesty, without specifying which of his Governments, some to United Kingdom Mandates, some to Dominion Mandates and some to foreign Mandates. They are to be found in a number of Acts dealing with a variety of subjects; for instance, Colonial Development, Air Navigation, the Army Act, Customs, and so on. In many cases an Act passed for the United Kingdom contains a Clause authorising the extension of the Act by Order in Council to a territory under United Kingdom Mandate, in the same way as to a Colony. The purpose of the references in existing Acts is to place mandated territories in the same position as other dependencies of the country, whether that country be British or foreign, exercising the mandate.
With the end of the League the mandatory Powers voluntarily declared to the League their intention to continue for the time being administering mandated territories in accordance with the mandates until, of course, other arrangements had been made or agreed with the United Nations. There is, however, this difficulty. We are not certain in law that the references in our Statute Book continue to apply or are now applicable to a mandated territory not placed under trusteeship; for example, in the case of Palestine. It is even more doubtful whether these references continue to apply to a mandated territory when it has been placed under trusteeship. Those are our difficulties, and it is for this reason that we must amend our Statutes by this Bill.
The main purpose of the Bill can very shortly be summed up in these words. It is to provide that existing Statutes referring to mandated territories shall first apply to mandated territories which have now become trust territories, and secondly shall continue to apply to mandated territories which have not become trust territories. The Bill does not make any general change in the operation of the Acts, but it may affect the application of Acts of Parliament in certain


circumstances; for example, when a territory becomes a trust territory and there is a change in the Government responsible for administering the territory. Of course, the Bill does not affect the law of any Dominion or of any trust or mandated territory under the administration of the Dominion Government. It only deals with the application of the United Kingdom Acts and subsidiary legislation thereunder.
Perhaps I may deal with the details of the Bill quite shortly, Clause 1 (1, a) places a trust territory administered by a single country in the same position, in so far as the effect of our Statutes is concerned, as if the country were administering it under mandate. This is a simple case, of course, and the rule applicable is quite obvious. This paragraph will apply to all the normal cases of the present trusteeship territories. Paragraph (b) is a little more complicated. This paragraph covers the case where a trust territory comes under the administration of more than one Government or of the United Nations itself. In these cases it is not thought that any general rule can be laid down, because for one thing, such a position is entirely novel. There is no mandated territory under the actual administration of more than one Government.
Subsection (2) of this Clause enables the adaptation of our Statutes where there is a change in the country responsible for administering a trust territory. There has been such a change in the case of the islands which were originally under Japanese Mandate. Subsection (3) provides that the termination of the League shall not affect references in Acts of Parliament to mandated territories. This provision, of course, will affect Palestine and South West Africa. Therefore, this Subsection, unlike the rest of the Bill, will apply in the interpretation of future as well as past Acts, since it may well be convenient to continue to refer to South West Africa or to Palestine for the time being as mandated territories. This Subsection also covers retrospectively the interim period between the termination of the League and the placing of the various trust territories under trusteeship. Hon. Members will recall that there was such a gap and such an agreement made between the various Powers which were operating the mandates. Subsection (4), besides limiting the effect of Subsections

(1) and (2) to existing Acts, provides that the Bill shall operate to a limited extent on subordinate legislation in addition to its operation on the Statutes themselves. We shall thus avoid having to make amending regulations in every case where subordinate legislation is concerned. The remaining provisions of the Bill are clearly supplemental, and I hope and trust the House will now give this Bill its approval and a Second Reading.

1.31 p.m.

Brigadier Mackeson: I can say straight away that we on this side of the House regard this Bill as entirely non-controversial. I should say, in passing, that this is the second occasion today on which we have had the advantage of a Bill coming from another place which has, to some extent, been partly digested for us. I confess, I had the greatest difficulty in understanding this Bill, and I was relieved to see that their Lordships, who are far more learned than I could ever aspire to be, and who have already given consideration to this Measure also found it complicated.
My hon. and right hon. Friends appreciated the stand and attitude which the Colonial Secretary has taken in connection with Article 77. He made it quite clear at the United Nations organisation that it is permissible but in no way obligatory to place, first, mandated territories, secondly, territories detached from enemy states—such as the Italian Colonies—and, thirdly, territories which are so placed voluntarily by the states responsible for their administration, under the trusteeship of the United Nations. When certain Powers made an attempt to get us to put all our Colonies under that trusteeship the right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly—and I know with the full support of all political parties in the country, with the possible exception of one—stood against it. Inded, it would be very doubtful if, constitutionally, any Government could take those steps.
In the case of some of our Colonies, their relationship is direct with the Crown. For instance, during the Napoleonic Wars the people of Malta deliberately placed themselves under the protection of the Crown, which specifically undertook that if at any time it removed that protection, it should give the sovereign rights back to the people of that small island. There are no major points which I desire to


make in connection with this Bill, but from what the Under-Secretary said I was not quite clear what the position of South-West Africa and Palestine would be technically under Subsection (3). I take it they are to continue nominally as mandates.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Mr. Rees-Williams indicated assent.

Brigadier Mackeson: I see I am right in assuming that.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Well, Palestine is, but South-West Africa is rather a special case. There the Union Government have said they will continue to administer it as if the mandate still applied.

Brigadier Mackeson: I will certainly not press the question about South-West Africa. The Under-Secretary referred to the difficult case of Nauru. There, I take it, a de facto Australian administration will continue, which is satisfactory. The only other question to which I should like a specific answer is that I imagine we are correct in assuming that territories such as the Cameroons and Tanganyika, formerly mandated, can, under this legislation, benefit under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, and can also raise loans under the Colonial Stock Act. If the answer to those questions is in the affirmative, I have no further comment to make.

Mr. Roes-Williams: I can answer both those questions in the affirmative, and can give the hon. and gallant Member the assurances he desires.

Question, put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Wilkins.]

MANDATED AND TRUST TERRITORIES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[SIR ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make provision as to the application and modification of enactments in relation to mandates of the League of Nations and the trusteeship system of the United

Nations, it is expedient to authorise the imposition of any charge on public funds which may result from any provision made by the said Act—

(a) as to the manner in which enactments are to apply, or may be modified, where a territory becomes a trust territory, or a change in the authority responsible for administering a trust territory takes place on its becoming a trust territory or while it is a trust territory; or
(b) as to the effect, since the termination of the League of Nations, of references in enactments to mandated territories; including any provision made as aforesaid with retrospective effect from any date not earlier than that of the termination of the League of Nations."—[M. Rees-Williams.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

MANDATED AND TRUST TERRITORIES

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make provision as to the application and modification of enactments in relation to mandates of the League of Nations and the trusteeship system of the United Nations, it is expedient to authorise the imposition of any charge on the people which may result from any provision made by the said Act—

(a) as to the manner in which enactments are to apply, or may be modified, where a territory becomes a trust territory, or a change in the authority responsible for administering a trust territory takes place on its becoming a trust territory or while it is a trust territory; or
(b) as to the effect, since the termination of the League of Nations, of references in enactments to mandated territories; including any provision made as aforesaid with retrospective effect from any date not earlier than that of the termination of the League of Nations."—[Mr. Rees-Williams.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

BAGILLT WELCOME HOME FUND

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

1.39 P.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: The question which I seek to raise today concerns the misappropriation by an official of the Post


Office of certain moneys belonging
to the Bagillt Welcome Home Fund. Though this matter is primarily of interest to the people of Bagillt, to the 524 ex-Service men there, and to those who have collected the fund, it also raises a question which is of some general importance.
The facts are these. The Bagillt Welcome Home Fund was duly registered with the War Charities Commissioners. In May, 1944, at a public meeting, the local sub-postmaster, a man called Mr. Beattie, was appointed treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund in succession to a previous treasurer who had left the district. The people of Bagillt very naturally assumed that this man, being a sub-postmaster, was a man of credit. They knew him quite well and had no reason to suppose that he was not a man of credit. Further, it was particularly convenient to appoint him treasurer because in the village of Bagillt there are no regular banking facilities except those supplied by the Post Office.
The committee of the Welcome Home Fund instructed their treasurer to invest such moneys as he received in cash in 3 per cent. Defence Bonds, and he was to invest that money in the names of the trustees for the time being of the Bagillt Welcome Home Fund. At the time Mr. Beattie was appointed there was already £300 invested in 3 per cent. bonds, and a bond book had been issued by the Post Office Savings Bank Department and duly stamped by that Department in London. From the day this man was appointed treasurer, he misappropriated all the money, and nothing whatever was properly credited to the fund. For that fraudulent conversion he is now serving a sentence of four years' imprisonment. The total deficiency was £1,197.
What I want to make quite clear is that no claim has been made on the Post Office for the whole of that amount but only for one amount of £300. The reason why we believe very strongly that there is a claim upon the Post Office for the £300 is as follows. Mr. Beattie was instructed to invest the money in 3 per cent. Defence Bonds, and on two occasions he produced the bond book, which I now hold in my hand, at meetings of the committee, and in the bond book were entered two sums amounting to £300 in all and both times the entries were not only correctly made

but also stamped with the official stamp of the Post Office. When the police were closing in upon this man, he crossed out the entries in the book, but we have the evidence not only of the committee who saw those entries before they were crossed out but also of the forensic laboratory at Preston that those entries amounted to £300 and are correctly stamped with the Post Office stamp. My contention is that when doing this the sub-postmaster at Bagillt was acting in his capacity as a servant of the Post Office and not in his capacity as treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund. I have already been in communication with the Postmaster-General and I would like to read a short extract from his letter in answer to mine. The Postmaster-General said:
It seems to me to be quite clear from the full inquiry which has been made that the sub-postmaster received the sum of £300 to which you refer in your letter in his capacity as treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund, and in disposing of it irregularly he failed in his duty as treasurer to the fund and not in his capacity as sub-postmaster. I am afraid the fact that he chose to conceal £300 of the £1,197 with which he absconded by letting it be understood that he had used it to purchase Defence Bonds cannot be accepted as justification for the Post Office to assume liability for the loss.
This is the important point:
Indeed, it would be open to anybody, whether or not officially connected with the Post Office, to have practised the same kind of fraud.
It is rather alarming if it is true that it is open to anybody not connected with the Post Office not only to make a false entry in a bond book but to stamp it with the official stamp of the Post Office. I do not think it could really be done, nor do I believe that this is the real view of the Postmaster-General. I do not believe it for this reason. This man Beattie not only defrauded the Welcome Home Fund but also practised extensive frauds upon the depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank. He entered in their books the amounts they deposited and stamped them with the official stamp and then did not enter those amounts upon the return which has to be made to the Post Office Savings Bank every other day. He simply kept the money. In the case of these private people I understand that the Postmaster-General has made restitution in full to the extent of £1,600. Therefore, the private depositors have got their money back but the charity—if we


may call a Welcome Home Fund a charity—has not been so treated and has lost the whole of the £300 deposit as well as the rest of the money not entered in the bond book.
I cannot see any real reason why this differentiation should have been made. It seems to me that when the sub-postmaster was making entries in Post Office Savings Books or in the bond book and stamping them, he was in both cases acting in his capacity as a servant of the Post Office and not as a servant of the Welcome Home Fund or any other organisation. If there had been a similar case of a servant of one of the Big Five banks doing that, I have no doubt that an action would have lain against the bank and that they would unquestionably have paid up. I understand that the Post Office cannot be sued, and possibly for that reason—I do not know—the Post Office is not at the moment prepared to pay up——

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) make it clear whether or not he is suggesting that the charity has a legal claim against the Post Office?

Mr. Birch: I think it would have a legal claim, but I am not a good enough lawyer. I understand that the Post Office cannot be sued in the same way as one can sue a bank.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Legal proceedings could be taken.

Mr. Birch: If we do not receive a suitable answer, maybe we will do so. It seems to be a most dangerous doctrine to put about, that because we have as a treasurer or connected with a committee someone who is an official of the Post Office, that automatically takes away from us the protection which private people have if that man commits a fraud. Very rightly, it is a very common thing for Post Office officials to be appointed treasurers or secretaries of committees and charities of all kinds. They are used to dealing with accounts and are generally of the highest probity and, therefore, they very naturally get those jobs. If as a result of this case, it gets about that if a Post Office official is connected with a fund and a fraud is committed in the Post Office, one loses the ordinary protect-

tion which any other depositor would have, that is rather dangerous. It would mean a very great loss to the country if Post Office officials were in any way discouraged from doing the very good work they now do. There is strong local feeling on this matter and the people of Bagillt cannot understand why private depositors get their money back but the Welcome Home Fund cannot get its money back. I commend this case to the Assistant Postmaster-General and hope he may be able to give a sympathetic answer.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: As I made a remark to the hon. Gentleman I should not like it to be thought that I was in any way suggesting that he should take legal proceedings rather than bring the matter here to the House. I think he has been very wise to bring the matter here and not to have it dealt with by legal proceedings. It seems to me in conformity with what the hon. Gentleman said that the Post Office should consider this as a matter of what is morally right or wrong rather than as a matter of pure law. I hope it will be possible for them to consider this application sympathetically.

1.50 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I think the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) has stated his case with the moderation and persuasion which we usually associate with his remarks in the House. I think we both approach this problem not as lawyers but as laymen. It is perfectly true that we have both had legal advice. That is apparent from the remarks made by the hon. Member himself. The facts in the case are not in dispute at all, but our contention is this; that the sub-postmaster of Bagillt—this small township of 5,000 people—was acting purely in his capacity as treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund and not as sub-postmaster. In point of fact, he was engaged in quite a legal form of extramural activity in the same way as other members of the community would be so engaged. In other words, apart from being sub-postmaster, as a citizen he was taking part in other organisations. It must be remembered that the original entry in the book was not made by the sub-postmaster.
As a result of the expansion of their activities the committee was strengthened, and the scope of the Fund enlarged. Mr.


Beattie was appointed treasurer, and the bond book came into his possession, as treasurer, and he received the money. There is no doubt about that. It is perfectly true that he presented to the committee the savings bond book which contained forged entries. There is no doubt about that, but it is very interesting to note that while the committee were evidently satisfied with the entries which had been made in the book, they never asked for any particulars with regard to the other money, amounting to £800, which is also missing. Further—and this seems most unusual—they did not even ask what had become of the interest. After all, there had been interest paid on the original £300 and that had been paid into the local branch of the National Provincial Bank, I am informed.
To come to the fact that the person who committed this fraud was the sub-postmaster; is the hon. Member trying to argue the general principle that where defalcations of this character are committed by individuals who are not acting as servants, either to the Post Office or to a bank, the employers should carry their liability? There are, unfortunately, many cases among club officials—the secretary of a sick club, the secretaries of various other charitable funds—where there have been defalcations, but these clubs do not ask that the employers should meet these defalcations. It seems to me a sate analogy to say that if an official of a corporation or a transport undertaking were secretary of a sick club, and there was a deficit, no one would expect the corporation or the transport undertaking to meet the cost. Yet because it happens to be the Post Office, we are being asked to meet the claim.
It is very ingenuous to argue that the sub-postmaster had access to the stamp. I think the hon. Member's case more or less rests on that point. There are more ways than one of forging a book and it does not mean that
no other individual, if he were evilly disposed, could not have forged the book. Quite frankly, I do not think there is anything in that point at all, because the book could have been forged, even if the treasurer had not been the sub-postmaster. Therefore, I do not think there is much in the hon. Member's claims.
I do not wish to score a debating point in this matter, but I must say this: the

Welcome Home Fund consulted solicitors. We have here a copy of their letter. The legal advice which was given to the Welcome Home Fund committee was that there was no case in law against the Post Office—and that advice was right. In 1924, there was a somewhat parallel case, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies ruled that the Post Office was not responsible. Therefore, while I appreciate the attitude of the hon. Member in wishing to look after his constituents, by making representations to the Post Office to get them to meet this payment, our case is that on moral grounds there are no reasons why payment should be made. When this sub-postmaster was appointed, we took all the usual precautions of inquiry into the gentleman's character. First, we found that he was a lieutenant in the Royal Ulster Rifles during the last war—an officer and, one would suppose, a gentleman. The character given to him by the Army authorities was "exemplary." The second reference we asked for was from his last employers—Messrs. Courtaulds, "the" Courtaulds—and again his character was given as excellent. There was no dereliction of duty on the part of the Post Office with regard to the appointment of this individual. The fact is, we have been let down en this matter.
Another point is that there has been a tremendous amount of lack of supervision. But the accounts of that post office were examined at the appropriate period of time. Another point which has been argued is that hardship has been caused. Quite frankly, I am afraid I cannot accept that. The fact that there have been defalcations must have caused a tremendous amount of disappointment; the annoyance must have been considerable and, no doubt, people have vented their feelings very freely, perhaps to the hon. Gentleman as representative of the Division. There has been a certain amount of inconvenience caused, but there has been no real hardship. The main point is, of course, that these people have received less than they would have done. My right hon. Friend has given every consideration to this case; we view it sympathetically, but we find there is no reason in law why payment should be made. An unbiased examination of the facts would lead to this situation being accepted—that it was not in his capacity


as sub-postmaster, but in his capacity as treasurer of the Welcome Home Fund that these offences were committed.

Mr. Birch: I think the hon. Gentleman is answering points which I did not make. I did not plead hardship or negligence on the part of the Post Office. The real point is this: what is the difference between the postmaster making an entry in this bond book and stamping it, and making a fraudulent entry in a post office savings book? Why should the Post Office honour one and not the other? That is the point I should like cleared up.

Mr. Hobson: If the defalcations had been made by someone who was not a treasurer of the fund, in all probability the Post Office would have honoured them, as, indeed, they did in the case of defalcations from the Savings Bank accounts. But the fact is that Mr. Beattie received the money as treasurer of the fund and not as sub-postmaster.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: My hon. Friend has given a full and fair explanation which, I am sure, will be very much appreciated but, sitting here independently, in an almost judicial capacity, as it were, I feel there is a difficulty about the point about cancellation. If the cancellation was made properly, or could have been made properly by Mr. Beattie, in his capacity of sub-postmaster, I find some difficulty in following the argument that there is no responsibility on the Post Office because
it could have been made by someone else. I do not follow how the cancellation could have been made by someone else.

Mr. Hobson: If anyone desires to commit a forgery, he can do so. It could be committed on the actual Defence Bond book.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: May I put my point this way? Did not Mr. Beattie, in his capacity of sub-postmaster, stamp and cancel that document in a way in which he would have done, quite properly, if he had paid the money out to someone else who was entitled to the bond?

Mr. Hobson: I do not wish to recapitulate what I have already said, but let us take the normal Post Office practice in issuing Defence Bonds. When the money is paid it has to go to headquarters, and a book is issued. It is only when the book

is full that it goes to the head office of the Post Office. Mr. Beattie received this money as treasurer of the Welcome Home fund. The fact that he happened to be sub-postmaster was coincidental. He made an entry in the book, and stamped it. Other people, even if they had not held the job of sub-postmaster, could have done the same thing, had they been evilly disposed. It is our case that this offence was committed by Mr. Beattie as treasurer of the Welcome Home fund, and not as a Post Office official.

2.4 p.m.

Mr. Solley: It is unfortunate that I was not present when this Debate started but, nevertheless, I believe that what I am about to say may prove to be material to the question under discussion. I have had a little experience of the way in which the Post Office system operates, and I can say that, having regard to the extraordinarily large dimensions of that system, there is, correspondingly, a very small amount of crime in the Post Office. It is to the great credit of the nationalised industry which we call the Post Office that there should be so high a standard of honesty among its many thousands of employees. If, as a result of this Debate, it should go out to the country that the Post Office puts unnecessary temptation in the way of their employees I think it right and proper that that impression should, here and now, be corrected.
Anyone who has had experience at the criminal Bar will know from the cases which go to the Central Criminal Court—that is, cases which come within the jurisdiction of that court—that cases of Post Office employees are few and far between in comparison with the general calendar of crime which is dealt with at that court. The defendants concerned in Post Office crimes are, as a rule, quite untypical, in their outlook, of the general run of Post Office employees. Nevertheless, I think it only right to point out that crime in the Post Office, like crime elsewhere, has largely—not wholly, of course—an economic basis. It would be futile to deny that if employees were given a wage which was such as to enable them to have the minimum amount of luxuries for themselves and their families, the present small incidence of crime in the Post Office, and out of it, would become smaller.
This would not be the proper occasion to embark on the large question of the wage structure within the Post Office system, but I have had representations made to me from time to time about this matter. Not being a trade union leader, I have perforce had to say to those who brought this matter to my attention that, while I was sympathetic, they ought to seek their remedy through the official and trade union channels. I believe it would be wrong not to take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied that Post Office employees are getting a sufficient wage, having regard to their onerous duties and to the fact that many are put into a position where, should they succumb to temptation, they can do a great deal of harm to the community? It is to their credit that crime comes within so small a compass but, nevertheless, I think it is the duty of my hon. Friend to see that even that small incidence of crime becomes smaller by bettering the lot of Post Office employees, not merely in respect of wages but general working conditions. If that were done, I am sure that criminal conduct on the part of Post Office employees should become an absolute rarity.

PROBATION OFFICERS (PAY)

2.8 p.m.

Mr. Austin: I would like now to raise another subject, and not to detain my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General. I do so because, last week, on the Criminal Justice Bill, I hoped to make comments on two or three items, and was unable to do so. Today, I content myself with calling the attention of the House—although I appreciate that there will be no possibility of a Ministerial reply—to the recruitment of probation officers, as envisaged under the Criminal Justice Bill.

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Sir Robert Young): The hon. Gentleman cannot raise, on the Adjournment, matters involving legislation, which is what he is attempting to do now.

Mr. Austin: I am not asking for any further legislation, Sir. All I wish to do is to call the attention of the House, and the Home Secretary, to the existing scale

of salaries of probation officers, under Statutory Rule and Order, 1946, No. 1967

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would require legislation, and as the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask for legislation, that would be out of Order.

Mr. Austin: If I wish to call the attention of the House to the existing salary scales of probationary officers, is that to be interpreted as requiring further legislation?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is very difficult to answer that question. There is nobody here to answer. We have nothing before us to show whether it requires legislation or not, but if the matter requires legislation it is out of Order.

Mr. Austin: May I point out that the existing scale of salaries of probation officers is provided not by legislation but by Statutory Rule and Order? In view of that fact, I submit that I am in Order in discussing the scale of salaries.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I had better hear what the hon. Member has to say?

Mr. Austin: It is obvious from the various points of view raised in discussion on the Bill last week that there is increased scope for work by probation officers, and there will be an increased need for more probation officers in the country. There will be an extension of the use of this service, and, if I may refer to the Fifth Schedule to the Bill——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is about to do what I have suggested he cannot do, and he must not do it.

Mr. Austin: Very well, Sir, I will confine myself to the salary scale. At the end of the Debate last week, when the Under-Secretary sat down, I interjected to say, "Is he aware that the scale of salaries is entirely inadequate?" May I for the information of the House, enlighten it as to the scale of salaries? Under Statutory Rule and Order, 1946, No. 1967, is laid down the scale of salaries to be paid to probation officers. In regard to those over 30 years of age it may be said that their salaries were raised by approximately £100 with the passing of this regulation, and, therefore, men officers commence at £400 per annum. I


am more concerned with those under 30 years of age because I believe that there are many who feel that the probation service offers them a career. If we regard the probation service as a calling, and agree that there are some individuals with private incomes, it may be that they can afford to take up the probation service in the same way as other individuals take up the profession of medicine or missionary.
When I inform the House that the present scale of salary for a probation officer at 23 years of age or over is £305 per year, and for a woman probation officer of 23 years or over, but under 24, £290 a year, and there on until the age of 29 it goes up by increments of £10, and, in some cases, £15 per year, it will give some indication of the pitifully inadequate salaries which we are paying to these very responsible people in public life. A rough calculation shows that £305 a year for a young man of 23 works out at £5 18s. a week. I ask the House whether it can contemplate anyone maintaining a decent standard of life on a salary of £5 18s. a week, thereafter rising to £385 a year at the age of 29? I must admit there is an allowance of £30 for those in the Metropolis, but that obviously is eaten up by the increased cost of living in the London area.
I will content myself by saying that probation officers are needed in ever-increasing numbers because of the postwar neurosis of these difficult years when domestic lives are upset considerably, homes have been torn apart by the exigencies of factory service or war service by husbands and wives, and children being sent from homes already wrecked, and the probation officers find themselves in the difficult position of reclaiming human salvage and in the reclamation of home lives. I submit to the House—and I hope that this will reach the ears of the Home Secretary—that if we are to provide an adequate probation officer service necessitated by the needs of our people, we shall have to see that we improve the scales of salaries so that those who undertake this arduous and onerous task can live at least in decency and comfort themselves before they attempt to uplift the difficult conditions of those with whom they come in contact in the course of their work.

HOUSING, SCOTLAND

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I agree with what the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) has said about the salaries of probation officers. My purpose in rising is to deal briefly with some of the grievances that are felt at present in Scotland. We would very much like to know—those of us interested in housing problems in Scotland—how we are likely to fare under the new housing cuts which have been announced in the White Paper. I think that we have a very genuine grievance in Scotland that in this White Paper, which is a comprehensive document dealing with the United Kingdom, there is no specific reference to Scotland, and we are unable, from the statistics in the White Paper, to ascertain exactly how Scotland is to fair under the proposed cuts which are to take place in 1948.
The housing position in Scotland has been stressed over and over again in this House, but today the difficulties that surround the local authorities in Scotland are more serious than ever before. In my constituency of Ayrshire, last Sunday, I visited a little village called Woodside, in which miners live, and all the houses there should have been condemned at least 20 years ago. There are no amenities of civilisation, there is no light, no water supply, no sanitation, and we have people who are suffering from tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases living under conditions which are a disgrace to civilisation. These people see all around them new prefabricated houses, but they know that there are no houses for them.
As far as I can make out, it will be a very long time before the people who require to be rehoused in derelict villages in Ayrshire and other parts of Scotland will get the houses they need. There is nothing that more angers young married people who are waiting for houses than to see houses let on some kind of points system, and to find that they are left out. In Gravesend, recently, I talked for some considerable time to young newly-married people unable to get houses under the allocation of points system. The question of how to allocate new houses is a very grave problem for the local authorities, and in many parts of Scotland it is making the lives of members of town councils an actual burden. The person who can devise a scheme of letting municipal houses to


satisfy everybody does not exist. Whatever way the houses are let, there are innumerable applicants who are dissatisfied, which means that members of local authorities have to meet the criticism of the homeless, of people living in overcrowded conditions of the newly-married, and of all the other people who need homes so urgently. The local authorities in Scotland are greatly perturbed about the prospect of housing there. We on this side of the House urge the Government to remember that they will stand or fall on this housing problem, and that it is the most important social problem affecting the people of Scotland. It affects them in innumerable ways.
For example, there is a case which I am putting before the War Office at the present moment, and on which I have received very little satisfaction indeed. It concerns an Army captain who has tried unsuccessfully to get a house for the last ten years. He is a man who has devoted 25 years of his life to service with the British Army. At the present time, he is being threatened with eviction, and has nowhere to go. That is a plight which is common to many people living in Scotland. I do not wish to assert that the Secretary of State for War is unsympathetic, but the fact remains that this man is being threatened with eviction. Similar complaints are being made in all parts of England, Scotland and Wales. Serving officers and men are being threatened with eviction, after having given the major part of their lives to their King and country.
I respectfully suggest to the Secretary of State for War that this is not the way to encourage men to go into the Army; that these threats of eviction should be suspended, and that soldiers who are now living in married quarters or drill halls should be allowed to remain where they are until they can get alternative accommodation. I mention this case of Captain McGrath, who has been threatened with eviction from his home in Cumnock, because I think it is a typical case. I wish that the Secretary of State for War who had such an enlightened record in the Ministry of Fuel and Power would hold his hand in this case, and would decide that a Labour Secretary of State for War should not sanction proceedings which may result in a serving officer with 25 years' service being

evicted. This man has a wife and three children.
At Question time recently, I raised the matter of 15 people living in two rooms in a village in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland replied that there were not 15 people, but only 13, an answer which did not give very much satisfaction. Such conditions prevail in the towns and in the countryside of Scotland. As far as we can see, there is likely to be a slowing down of the housing programme, which is being resented by local authorities who are anxious to have the problem faced in the spirit in which our constituents sent us to this House. We know that there is objection to national expenditure on housing at the present time. But we must take a strong line on housing, and we must press for the continuation of expenditure on housing in Scotland with as much determination and persistence as hon. Members opposite fight for their battleships, their cruisers, and for the other armaments of war.
There are other complaints to be made against the War Office in Scotland. One of them is the question of the large amount of land which is still under their control in Scotland, and which is being used for the purpose of what is politely called "practical military training." The other night, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) raised the question of whether the War Office were acting wisely in giving notice to acquire 8,000 acres of land in Roxburghshire for the purpose of military training. As far as I am aware, no adequate answer was given to the point raised by the same right hon. and gallant Gentleman that 22,000 acres of land, on which it would be possible to rear 8,000 to 9,000 ewe sheep, are going to be taken over by the War Office for the purpose of practical military training. We deplore that proposal, and ask the War Office to reconsider their decision in the matter. The Government should impress upon the War Office that food is more important than military operations, and that the rearing of sheep is more important at the present time than tank exercises.
The question of agriculture in Scotland is one which is causing great anxiety throughout the length and breadth of the country. We are not satisfied with the complacency of the Secretary of State for


Scotland when he says that there are sufficient skilled or unskilled labourers on the land. We wish to impress upon him the necessity for putting up a case in the Cabinet against the War Office and against the Minister of Defence, and to ask that the people who are now being conscripted for the Armed Forces should be transferred to the land, to the mines, and to useful industry. They should be taken out of uniform and put back once more into civilian occupations. We cannot afford to have 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 people in uniform at a time when we badly need every available man on the land, in the mines, and in the factories in order to build up our export trade and the basis of national prosperity in this country.
Finally, I wish to raise another question which is exercising the minds of people in Scotland at the present time. It is the question of whether the Government are going to answer the demand, which is being made from all sections in Scotland, for a greater measure of self-government for the people of Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Any such question as that would, of course, require legislation.

Mr. Hughes: I was talking about inquiry, not legislation, Mr. Deputy-

Speaker. I was saying that the demand is being made at the present time for an inquiry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The matter of an inquiry would at some stage, presumably, involve legislation in the last resort.

Mr. Hughes: I have made my point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

2.29 p.m.

Major Haughton: I have listened with close attention to the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I would be more convinced of its sincerity if he had left out what I consider to be a very unfair insinuation that hon. Members on this side of the House are more concerned with the construction of battleships, cruisers, and tanks than they are with housing for ex-Service men. As an ex-Service man, I am just as keen as is the hon. Member to do everything which lies within my power for the housing of ex-Service men, and I am sure I am right in associating other Members on this side of the House with myself in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes to Three o'Clock.